Grace & Knowledge

Posted By Brett on February 1, 2010

Continuing my review of the November Watchtower article “Exposed: Six Myths About Christianity,” I’d like to remind my readers that the full text of the Watchtower article is in blue with my comments in black.

MYTH 2: THE WICKED SUFFER IN HELL

What does the Bible say? “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, . . . for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.” Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10, Revised Standard Version.

Ecclesiastes

It seems that the Watchtower Society draws a fair bit from Ecclesiastes to support their theology. I have already touched on this in a previous post, but I thought that perhaps a more extended treatment in in order.
Ecclesiastes is an examination of a world without God. It is written from the standpoint of “under the sun.” Job asks and answers, “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one” (Job 14:4). Adam rebelled against God and sought wisdom and counsel outside of God’s revealed will. Adam became unclean. And since we all descend from Adam, we all are unclean and our minds have no place for God in them “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God” (Romans 3:10-11). This is the curse of mankind. This is the lot God has given us. And Solomon laments that “it is an unhappy business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with” (Ecc 1:13). But still he applies himself and all his wisdom and resources to see what is worthwhile in a world without God. His findings?
“Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity” (Ecc 1:1). Complete and utter vanity! Absolutely meaningless. Consider his words:

• Why then have I been so very wise?” And I said in my heart that this also is vanity.
• What has a man from all the toil and striving of heart with which he toils beneath the sun? …This also is vanity.
• man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity.
• all toil and all skill in work . . . is vanity and a striving after wind.

Hard work, skill, wisdom are all vanity and meaningless? This is so out of accord with the rest of scripture that it should arrest our attention to the context. At several point Solomon will give his view of things with God in the picture to provide balance to his analysis. If one misses this literary context and structure, Solomon himself flatly contradicts himself. On the one hand the dead are better off than the living while in another passage the living are better off than the dead. Once the context is observed, then this passage as a proof-text for anhiliationism goes away.
It is strange that they quote only the first part of verse 5. The rest of it reads “and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.” If this view is not considered “from under the sun” but instead includes God in the picture, then serious problems arise for the Watchtower position. It means there are no rewards, but Jehovah Witnesses believe that there will be rewards for the righteous. Even worse, the memory of them is forgotten. The whole basis on which they construct the resurrection of non-existent beings is the supposition that they exist in the memory of God such that he can recreate them. But if this verse includes God in the picture, then there is not even the memory of the dead with God!
Verses 7-9 endorse a kind of hedonism. If God is not in the picture then eat, drink and be merry. Enjoy your wife, buy nice clothes, indulge in luxuries, and do whatever you want, for tomorrow you die. Paul echos this theme saying “What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” Without God in the picture, without the resurrection of Christ by which we have forgiveness of sin, from a human standpoint, let us eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. It is a very powerful point in both passages: God is in the picture, Christ is raised from the dead, we don‘t just die as if that is the end of the story.

Sheol, Hades, Thanatos, and Apothnesko

The Hebrew word Sheol, which referred to the “abode of the dead,” is translated “hell” in some versions of the Bible. What does this passage reveal about the condition of the dead? Do they suffer in Sheol in order to atone for their errors? No, for they know nothing.” That is why the patriarch Job, when suffering terribly because of a severe illness, begged God: “Protect me in Hell”[Hebrew, Sheol].” (Job 14:13 Douay-Rheims Version). What meaning would his request have had if Sheol was a place of eternal torment? Hell, in a biblical sense, is just the common grave of mankind where all activity has ceased.
It is true that sheol is the general abode of the dead. It often functions as a synonym for “grave.” Whether some versions translate it as hell is neither here nor there. It is rather anachronistic to translate it that way and the best modern translations don’t use “hell” until the New Testament. Still, sheol is roughly synonymous with hades.
Is not this definition of hell more logical and in harmony with scripture?
As we continue I believe that this statement will be shown to be overconfident.
What crime, no matter how horrible, could cause a God of love to torture a person endlessly? (1 John 4:8)
This is not an argument from scripture but rather an appeal to emotion. These kind of attacks have frequently been made to turn us against things in scripture. I believe that many people would be surprised by the things they find in scripture if they but read it. Consider:
Gen. 6:5-7; Gen. 19:24-26; Gen. 22:1-2; Ex. 11:4-7; Ex. 12:29-30; Ex. 32:27-29; Deut. 3:1-7; Deut. 21: 18-21; Josh. 7:10-26; Josh. 8:18-29; 1 Sam. 6:19-20; 1 Sam. 15:1-3; 2 Sam. 6:6-7; 1 Kings 20: 35-36; I Chron. 21:1-15; Eze. 9:3-8; Is. 13:11-22; Hos. 13:16; John 2:13-16; Acts 5:1-10
These events happened because scripture say so. We cannot deny they happened just because it may conflict with our fallen intuitions.

The Annihilation Passages

But if hellfire is a myth, what about heaven?
Compare these Bible verses: Psalm 146:3, 4; Acts 2:25-27; Romans 6:7, 23
FACT:

God does not punish people in hell

Perhaps some clarification is is order. Traditional Christians believe these three things: 1) All people die 2) Some go to heaven (or whatever you want to call the place of bliss) and 3) Some go to hell (or whatever you want to call the place of punishment). Thus we have no problem affirming all the passages that speak of the grave (death) since that is part of what we believe.
Hence, Job (from Job 14:13 above) is obviously not speaking of hell as a place of torment but rather he is speaking generally of death. Allow me to quickly cover the remaining verses they list for support.
Psalm 146:3-4: David is using this term as a general place of the dead so there is no conflict here. Moreover, David is addressing where our trust should be and where our help comes from. In the traditional Christian view, when grandma (who believed in Christ) dies and goes to heaven, we can’t draw from her saintly wisdom anymore. This view is perfectly consistent with what David says in Psalm 146. It is not that either the prince or grandma cease to exist, it is that their counsel and help is no longer available to us. Therefore trust in God.
Acts 2:25-27: I’m not sure why this verse is here. Peter quotes Psalm 16 and applying it to Jesus. In Hebrew it was sheol, in Greek hades. Jesus was not left dead. We have no problem with this notion.
Romans 6:7, 23: Verse 7 is actually speaking about our union with Christ. Although the term apothnesko is employed, physical death isn’t even in this picture let alone hell (see verse 6).
Verse 23 employs the term thanatos and does have physical death in view (but again hell is nowhere in this picture). Thus “death spread to all men because all sinned. . . death reigned from Adam to Moses.” Paul’s point is (not only that physical death cannot hold us) but that spiritual death (sin) also has no power over us anymore. Thus we are free to do acts of righteousness. It’s a great verse but I’m not sure how they think it proves that the wicked will not be punished in hell.

Category: Apologetics, Eschatology, Theology | No Comments »
Tags: Annihilationism, Hell, Interpretation, Jehovah Witnesses, Myths

Posted By Brett on January 27, 2010

For those who may be interested, here is a conversation I had with a Lutheran on the assurance of salvation. His comments are in black, mine are in blue (there is another fellow by the name of Mark also in the discussion. I have largely left him out except where we overlap. His comments are in red.It is not very tight, but I was short on time. I was not trying to set forth a foundation for assurance so much as point out that his accusations are sloppy since it cuts against the Lutheran position as well. Enjoy. (more…)

Category: Theology | No Comments »
Tags: Assurance, Calvinism, faith, Lutheran, Sacraments

Posted By Brett on January 21, 2010

Typography from Ronnie Bruce on Vimeo.

HT Justin Taylor (who HT’ed Jeff Brewer)

Category: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Brett on January 20, 2010

I like hard books. Keller’s book is hard, not because of how it challenges my mind but by how it challenges my life. The book is broken into two parts, exegesis and practice. Both are necessary and it is helpful to have it in one volume.

Like so many conservative Christians I had political positions that I held to be biblical. When those positions were challenged, it was never done on a robust exegetical basis so I never felt compelled to change. Why help the poor? “Giving them handouts will simply make them dependent. If I give money to this bum he will only buy alcohol. In America the poor are only poor because they are lazy and refuse to work, there are plenty of jobs.” These are just a few of the objections that I harbored regarding the poor.

Keller does a great job of addressing the common objections to helping the poor (among other things).
If I were to pick one word to describe this book it would be “balance.” Keller does a stellar job of balancing the views on these hot topics. Both liberals and conservatives have things to contribute and things to learn. Keller exemplifies the Reformation cry of sola scriptura making scripture, rather than a political affiliation, the final authority.
The first section is largely an exegesis of the parable of the Good Samaritan. He first covers the call to, the character of, and the motivation for mercy. He then begins the balancing act. Giving versus keeping: this addresses the question of how much? “I cannot give all that I have. I have other responsibilities.” These are both legitimate statements and common excuses. Keller removes them as an excuse (which is scary) but allows a biblically informed expression of them. Church verses world: this chapter addresses the question of who should we help first, and whose job is it to help. The answers to both of these questions really challenged me. Conditional versus unconditional: This chapter affirms both; unconditional mercy at first followed by increasing conditions. His guide is that we should let mercy limit mercy. Word versus deed: This chapter was one of my major hang-ups. The deed ministry is useless if a person does not receive the gospel. “What good does it do to gain the whole world and yet loose your soul?” Yet at the same time Jesus did heal the sick and feed the hungry. It is not an either or situation. Why are we creatures of such extremes that we preach with zero aid or we live a social gospel void of the true gospel?
The second part of the book is practical. Keller takes you through the nuts and bolts of preparing and mobilizing your church and expanding and managing your vision of ministries of mercy. This is a wonderful part of the book since many may be convinced of the principles from the first part of the book but have no idea where to start. As a good pastor, Keller provides concrete application for implementing the biblical principles of mercy ministries. I highly recommend this book.

Category: Culture, Evangelism, Gospel, Scripture | No Comments »
Tags: Book Review, Church, Evangelism, Grace Community, McCook, Methods, Tim Keller

Posted By Brett on January 13, 2010

Albert Mohler is a voracious reader. I believe that he reads almost a book a day. This book evidences a well read review of the New Atheism.

It is broken into two major sections: 1) A Presentation of the New Atheism and its main proponents and 2) a response to that challenge.<br/>Mohler does a fantastic job of presenting the New Atheism. On that mark I’d give him five out of five stars. He spends the larger part of his book simply presenting their view. He does so in a way that is honoring and fair and without any caustic rhetoric. Would that all polemical books spend as much space on fairly representing their opponents. The book is worth the purchase if for no other reason than the nice summation it provides of the New Atheism.

The Second part of the book is a response to the challenge of the New Atheism. I was actually a bit disappointed at this section. Perhaps that is not really fair given the size of the book. It is a short book meant to be only a brief presentation and response. It deals with many weighty issues that could each be a book in their right. Mohler does give some good things for the atheist to chew on and he makes some solid points. However, the atheist is not likely to be swayed nor the Christian well-prepared by the second part. Again, this is probably a bit harsh since the book does not aim to be an exhaustive treatment.

All in all it is a very good book for what it is intended. It is a great introduction to the debate.

Category: Apologetics | No Comments »
Tags: Albert Mohler, Atheism, Book Review, Philosophy

Posted By Brett on January 7, 2010

Continuing my review of the November Watchtower article “Exposed: Six Myths About Christianity,” I’d like to remind my readers that the full text of the Watchtower article is in blue with my comments in black.

MYTH 2: THE WICKED SUFFER IN HELL

What is the origin of the myth? “Of all the classical Greek philosophers, the one who had the greatest influence on traditional views of Hell is Plato.” – Historie des enfers (The History of Hell), by Georges Minios, page 50.

-

Who’s Borrowing?

I have no idea who Georges Minios is. Ad Fontes! From this quote I have zero source data. It is hard to tell if this even has reference to Christianity. Presumably it does, but Christianity is not the only religion with a judgment and punishment in the afterlife. Moreover, if it is about Christianity I have no way to tell if Mr. Minios is referring to the authors of scripture or post-apostolic Christianity. If it is the former then this quote cuts against the Watchtower Society also since they would surely not assign such borrowing to the NT authors. Since I know nothing about Georges and since there is precious little available on him I’ll just leave this quote as is.
In a previous post we spoke of borrowing. Here is an interesting quote from Justin Martyr:

The very thing that the Watchtower Society says Christianity borrowed from Plato, Justin says was the other way around. Again, I’ll not try to exhaust this issue, my point is that it is easy to claim borrowing (as Justin also does) it is quite another to prove it.

Category: Anthropolgy, Apologetics, Eschatology, Theology | No Comments »
Tags: Cults, Hell, Historical, Jehovah Witnesses

Posted By Brett on January 4, 2010

It seems that there is no end to the books that aim to tell us how the church should look. On the one hand it can be very disorienting to get so many different viewpoints. There are two things to practice in sorting out all the information we receive. First, read each book with your Bible in hand (this is obviously for Christian books). This does wonders to help sort out the confusion. Each time a Bible passage is mentioned, look it up and read it in context. Is the author trying to use it as a proof-text or is it a legitimate exegesis?
Second, read widely and assess the overall picture. Most books are simply addressing one particular area (in this case problems in the church). It is helpful to understand that each book represents a piece of the pie and not the whole pie.
Roaring Lambs is a book that focuses on the impact the church should have in all of our life. Perhaps more accurately it speaks to the affect that God should have in all of our life. We have a tendency to atomize and compartmentalize everything. Church is no different.
Christianity is something that we do on Sunday mornings but it does not flow into the rest of our lives. Vast areas of this world are virtually untouched by Christian influence because of this compartmentalization.
Roaring Lambs aims to lift our gaze beyond the four walls of our church to consider the rest of our life. Specifically it focuses on TV, movies, literature, art, and academia. It provides some good examples of how people have made strides in these areas and so inspires each of us to do more. It challenges churches to encourage and promote an interest in these various fields.
I do not believe that the church’s primary responsibility is to influence art, TV and science. However, I believe that these things should be an overflow of a life that is captured by Christ. In as much as that is true, churches should encourage their members in these things and should help provide biblical thinking as to how they can live out the Christian worldview in their place of employment.
Roaring Lambs is a good place to begin that journey.

Category: Culture | No Comments »
Tags: Book Review, Church, Grace Community, McCook

Posted By Brett on December 31, 2009

The Intermediate State

Having dispensed with the given texts in support of a mortal soul, the case still needs to be presented for an immortal soul. There is a vast array of texts that could be brought to bear on this subject to prove the immortality of the soul. However, since the main point of disagreement seems to be the intermediate state, I will focus my response there.

_

Movement Passages

If the soul ceased to exist at death one would not expect to find descriptions of its movement. Yet many passages describe the soul as returning, departing, entering or leaving. Consider:
Gen 35:18 And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin.
The soul was not ceasing to exist, but was departing. The term is yatsa and the majority of the time it conveys a relocation. Sometimes it is the source more than the physical movement that is emphasized (such as the flow of a river). The most reasonable interpretation is that her soul (the immaterial part of her existence) relocated.
Eccl 12:7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
Luke 8:52 And her spirit returned, and she got up at once. And he directed that something should be given her to eat.

In normal usage, these terms describe that which continues to exist. When I depart a building or my wife returns from the store or my children depart the house or my dog enters it again, all of these verbs suggest that the person or animal continue to exist. So it is with the soul. It continues to exist as it moves from one place to another as the traditional understanding of the soul asserts.

_

Entrust Passages

If the soul ceased to exist at death, then one would not expect to find passages where it is entrusted to God. If it ceased to exist, then there is nothing to entrust. If I commit something to your care, that something has to exist in order for my statement to make any sense. Consider:
Psalm 31:5 Into your hand I commit my spirit; you have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God.
Luke 23:46 Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last.
Acts 7:59-60 And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

When I entrust my car to someone, my car does not cease to exist. If I commit my finances to someone, my money does not cease to exist. When I entrust the mailman with an urgent letter the assumption is that my letter continues to exist as he takes it to the intended destination. How can God receive what does not exist?

_

Disconnected Passages

If the soul ceases to exist at death then it would be a most explicitly contradictory thing to find passages that describe souls existing apart from the body. Yet there are such passages. Consider:
1 Sam 28:11-15 Then the woman said, “Whom shall I bring up for you?” He said, “Bring up Samuel for me.” 12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice. And the woman said to Saul, “Why have you deceived me? You are Saul.” 13 The king said to her, “Do not be afraid. What do you see?” And the woman said to Saul, “I see a god coming up out of the earth.” 14 He said to her, “What is his appearance?” And she said, “An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped in a robe.” And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and paid homage.

15 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” Saul answered, “I am in great distress, for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams. Therefore I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do.”

Necromancy was forbidden in scripture. The assumption seems to be that in some instances one can communicate with the dead. But if the dead cease to exist then there is no one to communicate with. No room is left for speculation as Saul summons Samuel through the sorcerer. Although Samuel died and his body was in the ground, yet he lived.

Isa 14:9 Sheol beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come; it rouses the shades [spirits of the dead] to greet you, all who were leaders of the earth; it raises from their thrones all who were kings of the nations.
Isa 26:14 They are dead, they will not live; they are shades [spirits of the dead], they will not arise; to that end you have visited them with destruction and wiped out all remembrance of them.
Is 26:19 Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise. You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For your dew is a dew of light, and the earth will give birth to the dead [departed spirits].
Matt 17:3 And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him.
Matt. 22:32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.”

The interesting thing about this passage is that Abraham and Issac and Jacob had not yet received their resurrection bodies (neither will they until the second coming.) Though they were physically dead, yet Jesus says they are alive.

Philippians 1:23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.

Why would non-existence be better? Indeed Paul says it is far better. The reason is:

2 Cor 5:8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

To be absent from the body is (not to cease to exits but) to be present with the Lord. One cannot be present if he does not exist. To be in the presence of the Lord is far better!

Hebrews 12:22-23 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,
Rev 6:9-11 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. 10 They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.
Rev 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

These are a lot of passages to try to rework. On the whole it makes more sense to say that the soul continues to exist after death.

Category: Apologetics, Theology | 6 Comments »
Tags: Anthropology, Eschatology, Immortal, Jehovah Witnesses, Myths, Soul

Posted By Brett on December 28, 2009

The Second Coming, by John MacArthur, is a good dispensational book on end times. I am an amillennialist myself, but the Second Coming is worth the read no matter your perspective. There are two abuses that seem to attend books on end times. Either they are vitriolic and harsh toward dissenters, or they are wildly imaginative, sensationalistic, and bordering on just plain goofy. MacArthur avoids both of these errors.
After listening to his 2007 Shepherd’s Conference address, I was a bit nervous to crack the book, but I was well pleased by what I found when I did. It was written with conviction but with warmth and gentleness. That is a hard thing to find.
It covers chapters 24 and 25 of Matthew’s Gospel and it reads like a series of sermons. As in his preaching, MacArthur was clear and articulate.
I suppose I can’t review a book from a perspective differing from my own without a bit of interaction, so here it goes. I think that it may be helpful for beginning end-times readers to understand MacArthur as meaning “physical” when he says, “literal.” On page 23 he states, “There is no reason to spiritualize or devise allegorical interpretations of scripture if the literal sense makes good sense.” Yet amillennialists believe that Christ is literally reigning even if it isn’t a physical reign on earth. There is nothing fictitious about the kingship of Christ. Thus it is helpful if you read MacArthur as saying “physical” when he says “literal.” MacArthur even admits this amillennial interpretation (a real though spiritual reign) on the same page.
In chapter 6 “Signs in the Sky” MacArthur takes the partial preterists to task. On page 121 he states that preterists employ, “allegory and symbolic language to make as many of the prophecies as possible fit the events of A.D. 70. In so doing, they utterly divest much of the discourse of any real significance, turning great cosmic signs into mere metaphors about the transition between covenants.” I’ll get to the metaphors shortly, but what struck me in this quote was the minimization of the New Covenant. MacArthur acts as if the transition from the Old to the New Covenant was no big thing. But the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Christ is the biggest thing that has ever occurred in this world. In this transition the types and shadows were fulfilled. The High Priest has made satisfaction. Redemption was accomplished. The head of the Serpent was crushed. Why would actual cosmic fireworks be more significant than these things?
Regarding the signs in the sky, and earlier on the same page MacArthur quotes Gary DeMar saying, “In other contexts, when the stars fall, they fall to the earth, a sure sign of temporal judgment (Isaiah 14:12; Daniel 8:10; Revelation 6:13; 9:1; 12:4).” DeMar, a preterist, does not devise allegory to explain away Matthew 24, rather, he goes to scripture to see how this imagery has historically been used. When one does that one finds that these cosmic signs were never physical events but were instead apocalyptic language for a shaking of the world powers. On the next page MacArthur concedes that “Almost no one expects the stars to fall to earth literally. It’s possible, too, that the sun might not be extinguished literally. . . . So I agree that wooden literalism is not necessary to get a right sense of Jesus’ words.” A bit further on page 124 he writes, “The cosmic signs Jesus gave in his discourse would have been thoroughly familiar to any student of Old Testament Messianic prophecy.”
So it is a bit strange that MacArthur acknowledges that wooden literalism is out, mentions Old Testament usage, quotes a preterist who makes his case from Old Testament usage, but never deals with their conclusion on that basis. I also found the appendix ironic given Pink’s ultimate eschatological position.
More positively, I enjoy the book on the whole for many of the reasons I mentioned at the top of this review. Additionally, and more specifically, I liked his statement on page 163 that “Staying prepared for the Lord’s return will therefore ready us to face death too.” That is very good advice. Regardless of when the Second Coming will occur, we will all meet God within our lifetime since, at death, we will stand in His presence. Either He will come to us, or we will go to Him. Either way we need to be prepared. We get caught up in end-times speculation and fail to live in the present the way we should in light of the end (2 Peter 3:11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness”).
I’ll end with another good quote on page 172 regarding the parable of the talents. It is food for thought for all of us:
“He had no interest in increasing his master’s wealth. He was not committed to the honer and glory of his master by extending the master’s realm. On the other hand, he had things he wanted to do, and as long as the Master was not around to hold him accountable, he was perfectly happy to pursue his own interests and utterly neglect his duties.”

Category: Eschatology, Theology | No Comments »
Tags: Book Review, Dispensational, Eschatology, Grace Community, John MacArthur, Literal, McCook, Physical, Premillennial

Posted By Brett on December 21, 2009

A good friend of mine recently raised the question of God’s dealing with man (specifically in the OT).The issue raised is one that I have encountered a few times and goes something like this, “It is often hard for me to imagine a god more cruel than our own.” Since this is a recurring topic on many forums, I thought it worth posting my response such as it is. I am not presenting a full-orbed theodicy, just a quick brain exercise.

I actually find it pretty easy to conceive of a more cruel god. Perhaps that reveals more of my own depravity than anything, but it doesn’t take much imagination on my part to conceive of one worse. There are always exceptions so I am not going to try to make an exhaustive case. Rather I will simply speak from my own experience.

I love to eat. It is a wonderful pleasure that I have been granted. The ease with which I eat is grace. It is not something that God owes to me. The farmer grows the food when that it something that I could be required to do. A fully evil god that delighted in the suffering of people could require that I sue rose-bush stems for my farming implements so my hands are constantly lacerated.

I have infrastructure and distribution that allows for easy transport (practically to my front door). An evil god would surely make me walk across glass to retrieve the food that someone else grew. Moreover each trek to retrieve my food would happen in bitter cold weather.

It is shear grace that food has been infused with wonderful flavors and that I have taste buds so that can appreciate it. A cruel god may elect to have my food taste horrible so that every bite would be deeply nauseating. At the very least it would be flavorless.

Much grace has been granted to overcome such side effects as e-coli. Surely an omnipotent fiend would ensure that every apple has e-coli and I am constantly sick.

The texture and temperature of the food could also be adjusted to add to my misery. It may have the texture of sand burs and the heat would be scalding. Every aspect of my eating could be absolute torture. And that is just eating. This is just a five minute brain exercise (it’d be faster but I type slowly). For anything than one can complain about there are a thousand thing that could be worse.

Category: Apologetics, Theodicy | No Comments »
Tags: God, Theodicy